Prophecy

[BDJ]

Regarding possible messianism in James 5:7 (or whether "the Lord" refers to God or Jesus here), Cheung notes (pg. 249-250):

However the word παρουσία ('coming,' 5:7) is never used in the LXX with reference to the coming of God or any divine figures. In the New Testament, the expression "coming of the Lord" becomes a technical term for the second coming of Christ ... Most scholars therefore argue that in Jas. 5:7, 8, the Lord refers to Christ ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=EKZLA ... rd&f=false

In any event, I think the reference to Elijah in 5:17 (in addition to "the last days" in 5:3) also fits a messianic context.

I would agree that "the Lord" in James 5:7 may refer to Jesus. But it might refer to God too... How can we explain that James doesn't speak of the 'coming of Jesus" in Jas 5:7, if that is what is meant? And why present 'the prophets' as an example of suffering and compassion, and not even mention Jesus' crucifixion here?

But even if we take Jas 5:7 as referring to Jesus, then this doesn't make James a messianic text. There is no description of the role that the messiah would play (saviour, atonement for sins), his (Davidic?) descent, his victory over the nations - or any other aspects that we find typical for a messiah-. The situation looks similar to the DSS use of the messiah: the arrival of a messiah only indicates that the end-time is near, and God remains the main actor. So we could find apocalyptic trends in James (as we do in Paul), but it is not a messianic text.

[John2]

We already know that James regarded Jesus as the Messiah because he calls him Christ in 1:1 and 2:1, and this is understood to mean the Messiah in the NT, e.g., Mk. 14:61, "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?'" and Jn. 1:41, "We have found the Messiah (which means Christ)."

So even without James 5:7-8 I think the Letter of James is a messianic text (however you define messianism).

And I'm a how-is-it-used-elsewhere kind of guy, and Cheung noted that the word James uses regarding the "coming of the Lord" in 5:7 is used elsewhere in the NT to describe the coming of Jesus and is not used in the LXX in reference to the coming of God or any divine figures.

I think you put your finger on the overall situation with this statement:

"The situation looks similar to the DSS use of the messiah: the arrival of a messiah only indicates that the end-time is near, and God remains the main actor."

You also wrote:

"In James's letter, the 'Lord' tends to refer to God, not necessarily to Jesus."

It seems about 50/50 by my reckoning, but the first thing James says is that Jesus is the Lord, not God:

"James, a servant of God (Θεοῦ) and of the Lord (Κυρίου) Jesus Christ..." (1:1).

And he uses "God" (ten by my count) more often than "Lord" (two by my count) to describe God in chapters 1 and 2 (where Jesus is called "the Lord").

You also wrote:

"In those rare instances, the messiah (or messiahs) is mentioned as an indicator that the the end-time has come, and the messiah does not play a decisive role at all (e.g. as saviour, redeemer etc.). Hence, although 'anointed' figures do appear in the DSS, I would not call them messianic literature."

In the four passages that anticipate the coming of the Messiah in the Damascus Document that I linked to above, Chester points out two that say:

"CD 14.18-19: And this is the exact explication of the statutes [in which they shall walk until there shall arise the Messia]h of Aaron and Israel, and he will atone for their iniquity..."

And:

"CD 19.10-11: These shall be saved at the time of the visitation, but the rest will be given over to the sword when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes..."

Regarding CD 14.18-19, Waddell notes that:

It is possible to read Paul's concept of forgiveness of sins as a function of the messiah figure in a way that is similar to the concept as it appears in the Damascus Document (CD). At CD xiv 19, when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel appears ... the iniquities of the people will be atoned ... According to the author(s) of CD the appearance of the Messiah of Aaron and Israel would bring about forgiveness by a means more effective than sacrifice.

https://books.google.com/books?id=kt7eB ... ah&f=false

Wacholder has the Hebrew for this on page 98 and translates it on page 99 as:

And these are the verdicts [by which they shall be judged] [until the Anoint]ed of Aaron and Israel [arises] and atones for their transgressions by an offering, a sin offering or a gift.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZZ58U ... 14&f=false

[John2]

BDJ wrote:

"And why present 'the prophets' as an example of suffering and compassion, and not even mention Jesus' crucifixion here?"

I suspect that the relative "silence" about Jesus in the Letter of James is due to the fact that the DSS sect/Essenes/Jewish Christians kept their doctrines secret from outsiders, and the letter is addressed to outsiders, or "to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations" (1:1).

As Josephus writes (War 2.8.7):

"...he will neither conceal any thing from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life."

1QS col. 4:

"These are their ways in the world ... humble conduct sprung from an understanding of all things, and of faithful concealment of the mysteries of God."

Epistle of Peter to James (ch. 1):

"I beg and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Gentiles the books of my preachings which I sent to you, nor to any one of our own tribe before trial; but if any one has been proved and found worthy, then to commit them to him, after the manner in which Moses delivered his books to the Seventy who succeeded to his chair ... Wherefore they charge no one to teach, unless he has first learned how the Scriptures must be used."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080800.htm

[BDJ]

Thanks John.
I think you give a good example of what I called 'microscopic reading'. Out of the hundreds of Qumran texts, Chester (and also others) can sift 4 passages that describe he coming of messiah(s). And - as I said earlier - the messiah merely indicate the arrival of the end time, he/they don't have a n active role.

Only CD 14.18-19 is reconstructed in such a way that it appears that the messiah(s) atone for sins. Hurray, therefore all of Qumran is a messianic sect!

But helas, I can't agree with that interpretation. If you read the context of CD 14.18-19, you will see that the passage deals with Almsgiving. The text is fragmentary, but the complete passage reads like:" And this is the explanation of the judgments which…8 (The Messiah from) Aaron and Israel. 9 And He will pardon our sins…in money and he shall know…punishment six days and who shall speak…10 against Mos(es)". It is clear to me tat -also in CD 14.18-19 - the messiahs indicate the coming of an end time; and the He is actually God who pardons sins.

So even CD 14.18-19 does not describe any active role for the messiah(s). And just the mentioning of the word 'anointed one" (=messiah) doesn't make any text messianic.

[John2]

BDJ,

But the document that has these four messianic passages is also the only DSS that mentions the new covenant in a place called Damascus. So the way I see it is that because this type of messianic expectation and way of living was part of a "new covenant," it was, well ... new, like the innovative practices and messianism of the Fourth Philosophy that Josephus derided (e.g., Ant. 18.1.1: "...the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree ... the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together ... which we were before unacquainted withal" and War 6.5.4: "...what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth").

So in my view the Damascus Document (and the related pesharim) similarly represents a new kind of thinking and practice, similar to the Fourth Philosophy that Josephus says introduced new practices ("which we were before unacquainted withal") and was motivated by messianism. I wouldn't expect the other Dead Sea Scrolls -those that do not mention the Teacher of Righteousness- to exhibit the exact same type of practice and thinking. In other words, whatever the Righteous Teacher was teaching, it was new. And I think that this teaching started a sect because of the brief history given in CD col. 1 (which, as Blanton notes, uses an expression, "root of planting from Aaron and Israel," that "resonates with the sect's messianism"):

Using this imagery the sect is able to establish its pedigree as a group that was founded by an act of divine selection, as God chose and nourished the "root" that would later constitute the sect.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rdaTp ... sm&f=false

This new thinking and way of life could not have arisen in a vacuum, and in my view that is what the other DSS writings fill in.

As far as the context of CD 14.18-19 goes, it looks like the translation you used is from R.H. Charles from 1913, and that appears to be reconstructed somewhat differently from the citations I gave of Waddell, Chester and Wacholder (and that are in line with Martinez, Vermes, and Wise, Abegg and Cook). I wonder if this is due to the latter having fragments of the Damascus Document that were found at Qumran? I don't know. And this person who uses Charles notes:

The text used by Charles shows loss at the bottom of the Columns after Column 13. These textual losses do not occur in the translation of Martinez and Tigchelaar. This fact naturally raises the question of the copy used by Charles. Was it a poor copy, that exhibited loss at the bottom of those columns? Did it suffer damage with handling before it was translated by Charles? We have no certain answers.

http://www.world-destiny.org/q1/CharlesCD.htm

I don't know what the situation is regarding the reconstruction of col. 14, but in any event I get the sense from these later translations and interpretations that it is the messiah who will pardon sins.

[John2]

However you understand or reconstruct CD 14.18-19, there are other arguable references to the coming of the Messiah in CD 7-8 (in interpretations of prophecies that are applied to Jesus in the NT):

Then I will exile the Sikkut of your king and the Kiyyun of your images "away from the tents of Damascus" (Amos 5:27). The books of the Torah are equivalent to the booth of the king, as it says, And "I will raise up the fallen booth of David" (Amos 9:11). The king refers to the <prince> of the congregation and the Kiyyun of their images are the books of the prophets whose words Israel has despised. The star is the interpreter of the Torah who is to come to Damascus, as it is written, "A star has stepped forth from Jacob and a scepter has arisen from Israel" (Num 24:17). The scepter is the leader of the entire congregation, and when he will arise he will shake up all the sons of Seth ... those who remain will be given over to the sword when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel will arise, as it was during the first period of remembrance (in Egypt), when He (God) said through Ezekiel: "To make a mark upon the foreheads of the distressed and moaners" (Ezek 9:4). But those who remain will be handed over to the avenging sword, a vengeance of the covenant.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZZ58U ... ng&f=false

This ties all the elements of messianism together, God, the Messiah, the end of the world, some being saved, some being "handed over to the avenging sword" and the use of messianic proof texts.

And the word used for the coming leader (or prince) of the congregation in CD 7.17 and 7.20 (nasi) is connected to David and the word king in 7.16-17. Additionally, three of the four OT passages cited here are applied to Jesus or alluded to in the NT (Acts 15:16; Mt. 2:2. 2:7; Rev. 7:3, 9:4, 14:1) and Patristic writings (e.g., https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzcMA ... en&f=false).

And manuscript B cites two more OT passages that are applied to Jesus in the NT: "strike the shepherd" (Mk. 14:27) and "the fountain of living waters" (Jn. 4:10, 7:38; Rev. 7:17), with the latter in the context of the coming Messiah, the new covenant and Damascus:

"None of the men who enter the New Covenant in the land of Damascus, and who again betray it and depart from the fountain of living waters, shall be reckoned with the Council of the people or inscribed in its Book from the day of the gathering in of the Teacher of the Community until the coming of the Messiah out of Aaron and Israel."

[BDJ]

I have looked at a reputable translation of CD 14:18-20: The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Florentino García Martínez Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, Editors, BRILL (1999). It reads:

" ....And this is the exact interpretation of the regulations by which [they shall be ruled] 19 [until there arises the messia]h of Aaron and Israel. And their iniquity will be atoned [through meal and sin-offerings] 20 [Blank And the ma]n who ‹lies› knowingly with regard to riches, they shall ex[clude from the pure food...."

There is just no messianic message in these texts. I know that several authors claim that there is; just read the text yourself whether they are right.

It is really clear that the 'messiah of Aaron and Israel' phrase is purely and only used to indicate the arrival of the end time. It is like a catchphrase. No messianic meaning (no son of God, descendant of David, redeemer, saviour etc. etc.). Furthermore, the atonement of sins is through offerings, not through some action of the messiahs. And this is the pattern in all cases where the messiah of Aaron and Israel is mentioned.

[John2]

BDJ,

Thanks for the response. Apparently Martinez has another translation of CD 14.18-20 and that gave me the impression that the Messiah would pardon sins:

And this is the exact interpretation by which [they shall be ruled] [until there arises the messiah] of Aaron and Israel. He shall atone for their sins [...pardon, and guilt] [...] in riches, although he knows, and [...]

https://books.google.com/books?id=skIJ8 ... NE&f=false

After looking at various translations and reconstructions, it looks like CD 14 is more fragmentary than I had appreciated to say anything with certainty about the Messiah pardoning sins.

So that leaves the other references to the Messiah and Branch of David (in CD and elsewhere) and to the coming prince in CD 7-8 (and elsewhere) that I mentioned above. As these books note:

'Branch of David' and 'prince of the whole congregation' are clearly used in these passages as titles for the Davidic messiah..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=01Adv ... ah&f=false

...a number of scholars have classified this figure [the prince] as, in fact, "the Davidic Messiah."

https://books.google.com/books?id=JjS95 ... on&f=false

[John2]

Regarding the reconstruction of CD 14, Grindheim notes that:

... the reconstruction can be translated in different ways. In Garcia Martinez's rendering, the line reads, "[until there arises the messia]h of Aaron and Israel. And their iniquity will be atoned [through meal and sin-offerings]." The phrase "through meal and sin-offerings" goes back to the reconstruction of the two words ממנחה וחטאת. But if the preposition מן is taken to express separation, rather than means, the translation would be, "and he (the Messiah) will atone for their sin better than meal or sin offerings."

https://books.google.com/books?id=SwG2A ... nt&f=false

[John2]

4Q541 might shed some light on the question of the Messiah and atonement in CD 14 (scroll down to #28):

Column 4

(1)... his Wisdom [will be great.] He will make atonement for all the children of his generation. He will be sent to all the sons of (2) his [generation]. His word shall be as the word of Heaven and his teaching shall be according to the will of God.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrol ... ered05.htm

The text [4Q541] does not explain expressis verbis how the atonement is effectuated ... Atonement could be achieved by numerous other means than sacrifice ... Of the only two Qumran scrolls that mention an atonement through an eschatological figure (11Q13 II 7-8; CD XIV 19 = 4Q266 10 i 12-13) at least the Damascus Document may well imply a use of non-sacrificial means."

https://books.google.com/books?id=Lb4yA ... nt&f=false